The research methods through which psycho-linguists and neuro-linguists apply for detailed determination of process and tracing the neural process of concept to sentence (and in more detail word processing ) I suppose is in some way elusive and nonfunctional.Where the neural connections are processing in so complicated chemical and ionic processes then ,why we should waist our time on dealing with mass neural processing in Neural Networks? Through studying magnetic tracing or brain waves ?
The main Important thing that neurolinguists ,psycholinguists and ....need is to trace the exact processing and mapping process in between neural networks, tracing the detailed featuring chemicals transactions in neural networks.As we know this should be so complicated but ,one can not speak so realistic about language impairments ,language acquisition and NLP and.....
Dealing with mass neural processing of language is like to speak about flow of so many chemicals which can not reveal complicated process in brain .
Have you any suggestions .......Contact me :[email protected]
I am not an expert in this area, merely someone who is interested by it, so I'll share with you this post by Norbert Hornstein and the references cited. This generally argues against the neural network model of information storage.
http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.com/2017/05/naturalized-philosophy.html
There is an interesting suggestion by Randy Gallistel and Adam King in Memory and the Computational Brain. They essentially argue that contemporary neuroscience focusses on the wrong aspect of the brain, i. e. on connectivist models or neuronal networks. What one should do instead is to look for the realisation of computational procedures in the brain, in particular, one should look for the elements of computation. Gallistel and King focus on insect navigation, but if one assumes that sentences are generated by a computational procedure that is represented in the mind/brain of an individual, it does not seem to be far fetched to think that Gallistel's and King's argument should apply for sentences (and sentence processing) as well. Hence, if one wishes to understand how sentences are represented in the brain, one should find the physical realisation of the elements that make up the sentences. If this can be done, one may be able to trace the way they are processed in neuronal networks. However, it may also turn out that the actual mechanism operates on a different level.
In spite of all the advancement in Neurology in the recent years, it is just a nascent science like Astronomy. What we have learned is only a little bit of it. So, knowledge production in neurology is always appreciated by the community. But if you ask, why a neurolinguist should study the neural connections, well, it depends on how each one perceives the worth of one's knowledge, right? One thing is sure, that language area in the brain is not confined to Wernick's area or Broca's area in the brain. The brain deals with the syntax and semantics, even metaphors in different parts. Going through Tell-Tale Brain by VS Ramachandran will help to crystalize the arguments of Chomsky.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude